Tag Archive: Immigration Act 2016

Immigration Act 2016: New provisions now in force

The Immigration Act 2016 represents a significant milestone in immigration regulation creating additional duties and responsibilities on individuals and businesses. Immigration is increasingly under the spotlight and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future so it is therefore vital for employers to be fully aware of their responsibilities to effectively manage their risk.  Key features of the 2016 Act include the introduction of a new criminal offence of illegal working, criminal liability for employers who employ workers with reasonable cause to believe they do not have the necessary right to work in the UK and increased penalties for those who are found to have broken the law.

The substantive provisions of the 2016 Act are being brought into force in various stages, most recently on 1 December 2016.

By way of summary these are:

  • Closure Notices and Compliance Orders

New penalties now apply to offenders who have been found to be repeatedly employing illegal workers, or failing to pay a civil penalty notice. The new enforcement regime gives the Home Office the power to close an employer’s premises for up to 48 hours. All paid or voluntary work on premises subject to a closure notice will be prohibited.

Following the issue of a closure notice the matter will be urgently referred to a County or Sheriff Court for consideration. In those circumstances the court may apply a Compliance Order which may impose additional specific requirements on employers to follow to make sure that they do not commit further offences. The Court will have a wide discretion as to the measures that it can impose. At the same time it is important to note that an employer will have a defence against a closure notice if it can show that the appropriate right to work checks were carried out.

The potential closure of premises for up to 48 hours without notice or process will be of particular concern to businesses for whom such premises are key, and it is therefore vital for employers to be aware of their obligations in relation to illegal working and in particular to carry out right‑to‑work checks at the appropriate time. Also worth bearing in mind is the provision in the legislation for an application for compensation to be made for businesses which have suffered losses caused by closure orders.

  • Right to Rent Provisions

As of 1 December 2016 it is a criminal offence to rent a property to someone who is not lawfully residing in the United Kingdom. This provision follows on from the recent introduction of “right to rent” checks obliging landlords in England and Wales to conduct checks on tenants. The new landlord/tenant provisions come with strict penalties with potential custodial sentences of up to five years for offenders. This is relevant to employers who provide housing as part of the terms of employment and may present a particular risk to such employers with a cross-border workforce.

Although the legislation is now effective it remains to be seen how it will be enforced by the authorities and interpreted by the Courts. What we do know, however, is that the Home Office are taking steps to “strengthen our immigration system” against a backdrop of getting tough on illegal working. Employers should therefore review their processes to make sure that they are well placed to deal with an inspection and any resulting action.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.dlapiperbeaware.co.uk/immigration-act-2016-new-provisions-now-in-force/

Employers: Do your ‘right to work’ checks stand up to scrutiny?

Business immigration issues have not been far from the headlines since the Brexit referendum in June 2016 and, at the weekend, Theresa May announced that Britain will decide for itself how it will control immigration and that it “will be free to pass [its] own laws”. One of the key areas of focus in recent months has been on illegal working, where there have been significant developments. July 2016 saw the introduction of new measures creating a wider criminal offence with increased criminal sanctions, and the implementation of new enforcement powers for the Home Office – see our Be Aware alert of 11 July 2016 for full details. Further reforms are also expected in coming months including a power to temporarily close businesses that continue to employ illegal workers.

Alongside the new legal regime, the Home Office has been continuing to investigate employers of all sizes to identify whether any workers are being employed illegally. In the period January to March 2016 alone, the Home Office identified over 1,100 illegal workers employed in the UK and issued over 800 penalties, amounting to a gross figure of over £14 million. It also published the names of those employers on whom a penalty has been imposed, and who have not made payment, or have been served with further penalties.

This potential liability for criminal and civil sanctions, and significant damage to reputation, means that illegal working is an issue that employers cannot afford to ignore and must tackle head-on. Auditing  current workforces and existing procedures for carrying out “right to work” checks is a critical part of this process.

Take our 60 second quiz now to identify whether your ‘right to work’ checks stand up to scrutiny.

If you would like further advice or information, including our publications, ‘Right to work in the UK: Checking the status of your workforce’ and ‘Checklist: Right to work in the UK?’, please contact Kate Hodgkiss, Partner in our Employment group, or your usual DLA Piper contact.

 

Permanent link to this article: http://www.dlapiperbeaware.co.uk/employers-do-your-right-to-work-checks-stand-up-to-scrutiny/

The ill-treatment of domestic migrant workers because of their immigration status does not amount to race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

Bethan Odey and Emma Phillips, Senior Associates in our Birmingham office, comment: The recent case of Taiwo v Olgaigbe and another; Onu v Akwiwu and another [2016] UKSC 31 has highlighted the issues which can arise in respect of the employment rights of migrant workers. The case involved Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu, both Nigerian nationals who entered the UK lawfully with a domestic worker’s visa. Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu were subjected to mental and physical abuse, paid less than the minimum wage and denied the required rest periods. Eventually, Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu fled their employers and later brought employment proceedings against them.

In Ms Taiwo’s case the tribunal upheld her claims for unlawful deduction of wages, failure to provide the required rest periods and failure to provide written terms of employment. However, the tribunal dismissed her claims for direct and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In Ms Onu’s case the tribunal upheld the same claims, but also held that Ms Onu had been constructively and unfairly dismissed, and that she had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of race.

The two decisions were appealed. The EAT dismissed Ms Taiwo’s appeal and upheld Ms Onu’s employer’s appeal, stating there had been no direct or indirect discrimination. The appeals were then heard jointly in the Court of Appeal where the decisions of the EAT were upheld. The decision of the Court of Appeal was itself appealed to the Supreme Court where it was held unanimously that the treatment of the two employees did not amount to direct or indirect discrimination.

The counsel for the employees conceded that this was not a case of indirect discrimination, which in the Supreme Court’s opinion supported the view that that the mistreatment was not because of the employees’ race but for other reasons. The Supreme Court considered that Parliament could have chosen to include immigration status in the list of protected characteristics, but it chose not to. Although immigration status is a “function” of nationality, the reason why the employees were treated so badly was because of their particular vulnerability arising from their immigration status. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were Nigerian.

The Supreme Court went one step further and advised that Parliament may wish to address whether the remedy provided by section 8 of the Modern Slavery Act, which introduced rules regarding supply chain transparency for organisations, is too narrow and whether the jurisdiction of an employment tribunal should be expanded to allow them to grant compensation for the ill-treatment handed out to employees such as Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu. It seems that without this change, vulnerable migrant workers will continue to be denied sufficient remedy for any grievous harm they may suffer. The new Prime Minister has since confirmed that a new UK cabinet taskforce will address violations of the Modern Slavery Act, £33.5 million will be provided in official development assistance funding and further powers have been granted to law enforcement bodies in respect of modern slavery at sea. The judgment in this case also highlights the importance of having in place correct right to work visas as, should a claim be brought by a migrant worker, this will highlight, in a public tribunal hearing, any deficiencies in respect of right to work documents.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.dlapiperbeaware.co.uk/the-ill-treatment-of-domestic-migrant-workers-because-of-their-immigration-status-does-not-amount-to-race-discrimination-under-the-equality-act-2010/

Right to work checks: Extended criminal liabilities for employers

Germaine Machin-Cowen and Aaron Lyons, Associates in our Sheffield office, comment: On 12 July 2016, a number of changes under the Immigration Act 2016 will come into force, including extended criminal offences for employers in relation to illegal working.

Background

All employers in the UK have a duty to prevent illegal working by carrying out certain checks – known as ‘Right to work checks’ – on all employees before they commence employment.

Failure to carry out these checks, and to properly retain copies of right to work documents, can result in civil and criminal liabilities for employers.

  • A civil penalty of up to GBP 20,000 per illegal worker may be imposed if an employer employs someone without the right to undertake the work for which they are employed.
  • A criminal offence will be committed if an employer knowingly employs an individual who does not have the right to undertake the work for which they are employed.

The Immigration Act 2016

With effect from 12 July 2016, the current criminal liabilities will be amended by the Immigration Act 2016 to extend the offence of “knowingly” employing such persons to include employers who have “reasonable cause to believe” that an employee is disqualified from employment by reason of their immigration status.

In addition, the maximum term of imprisonment on indictment for a criminal immigration offence will increase from 2 to 5 years (although the potential for an unlimited fine in addition to such imprisonment remains).

A new criminal offence of illegal working, where an individual works in the UK with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that they are doing so illegally, is also being introduced with effect from 12 July 2016. This carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 6 months and allows for the individual’s earnings to be seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Also coming into force on 12 July 2016 is the creation of a new Director of Labour Market Enforcement. There will also be additional powers for immigration officers to search and seize documents in connection with the imposition of a civil penalty where they have reasonable grounds for believing the employer is in breach of their duties to prevent illegal working. There will also be extended powers to impose compliance sanctions and to close businesses which continue to employ illegal worker.

Comment

The changes reflect the government’s continued efforts to create a “hostile environment” for persons who are in the UK illegally, and to clamp down on employers who turn a blind eye to illegal working.

The changes will be of particular concern to employers, as they both lower the threshold for criminal culpability from “knowingly” employing an illegal immigrant to having “reasonable cause to believe” that illegal working or employment of an illegal worker is taking place, whilst simultaneously increasing the maximum penalties.

This means that employers will no longer be protected from prosecution on the basis that they did not explicitly know that an individual did not have the correct immigration permission for the work in question. However, it remains to be seen how the new wider culpability for a “reasonable cause to believe” will be interpreted.

It is therefore important to ensure that right to work checks are properly conducted before an individual begins their employment. If the checks are properly done, this will provide employers with a “statutory excuse” which protects them from civil or criminal liabilities.

Right to work checks

The 3-step checks that employers must undertake to comply with the law and secure the statutory excuse can be summarised as follows:

  1. Obtain the employee’s original documents as prescribed in the Home Office guidance.
  2. Check in the presence of the employee that the documents are original and valid.
  3. Copy and keep the documents securely and record the date of the check and date for follow-up checks.

It should be noted that all of the above steps must be conducted, as partial compliance with the above is not considered to be mitigating circumstances for the purposes of civil or criminal liability.

Top tips for compliance

  • Ensure that right to work checks are conducted in full before employees start work and that original documents are obtained, checked and copied in accordance with the Home Office Guidance.
  • Carry out right to work checks on all new employees to avoid discrimination claims.
  • Make the satisfactory completion of right to work checks a condition of any offers of employment.
  • Ensure that employment contracts place an obligation on employees to report any change to their immigration status and also provide for an express right to terminate the employment where the employee is not entitled to work in the UK. Employers may still need to follow a fair process to avoid claims for unfair dismissal but provisions such as these will provide a contractual basis for enforcing the employer’s stance on an individual’s right to work in the UK.
  • Ensure that all documents checked comply with the Home Office’s list of acceptable documents (note that this changes periodically) and that any photocopies of documents are complete and clear.
  • Always record the date on which each check was carried out and keep a record of when any follow-up checks must be made.
  • Be aware of the additional checks required if the employee is a student with work restrictions.
  • Be mindful that some immigration permissions only relate to specified roles, therefore there may be implications if an employee’s role changes.
  • Ensure that records of checks are easily accessible so they can be provided quickly if requested.
  • Be aware that there is a requirement to conduct right to work checks on all employees within 60 days following a TUPE transfer.
  • Note that if the UK leaves the EU the present rights of free movement enjoyed by EEA and Switzerland nationals to come to live and work in the UK may cease, meaning that right to work checks could become more extensive in the future.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.dlapiperbeaware.co.uk/right-to-work-checks-extended-criminal-liabilities-for-employers/